Jide Aladajobi vs NBA: A critique of Supreme Court’s decision

On July 12, this year, the Supreme Court of Nigeria, in the case of Jide Aladejobi vs The Nigerian Bar Association, unreported judgment in Appeal No SC/121/2011, held that it lacked the jurisdiction to hear appeals from the decisions and or directions of the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee hereinafter called LPDC of the Body of Benchers.

In the lead judgment delivered by his lordship Hon Justice John Afolabi Fabiyi, JSC, the Court held that appeals from the directions of LPDC of the Body of Benchers should go to the Appeal Committee of the Body of Benchers said to have been created by section 11(7) of the Legal Practitioners Act 1990 as amended.

Their lordships of the Supreme Court made up of Ibrahim Tanko Muhammad, John Afolabi Fabiyi, Suleiman Galadima, Musa Datijo Muhammad and Stanley Shenko Alagoa JJSC, reasoned quite erroneously with respect, that the Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal of the appellant, Mr Jide Aladejobi, whose name was ordered to be struck off the Roll of Legal Practitioners in Nigeria.

In the lead judgment, Fabiyi, JSC, held: if it is the fact that there is presently no Appeal Committee of the august body on ground, such lacuna should be remedied without any undue delay so as to enable the appellant take necessary action deem fit as dictated by law before the Appeal Committee of Body of Benchers. If I may suggest it should be a standing committee like the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee. I dare say it that the time for same is now in my humbly view.

It held that the decision of the Supreme Court in Okike vs LPDC (2005) 15 NWLR (pt.949) 471, was given per incuriam and that in the face of the applicable law it discussed, the Okike decision cannot stand the test of time. Was the Supreme Court right in its decision in Jide Aladejobi vs NBA on the points raised and decided by it? Is the decision in Okike vs LPDC (supra) given per incuriam. Was the Supreme Court Properly guided or did it properly guide itself in the Aladejobi’s case. My view on the above issues is in the negative.

The Supreme Court decided Aladejobi’s case per incuriam in the face of its decision in Okike vs LPDC (2005) 3-4 SC 49. In the Okike vs LPDC (No1) supra, decided on April 1, 2005 and reported in the Judgment of Supreme Court (SC) which is different from Okike vs LPDC (No2) (2005) 15 NWLR (Pt.949) 471 decided on July 15, 2005, the Supreme Court on October 15, 2004, coram: Kutigi, Uwaifo, Musdapher, Pat-Acholonu and Akintan JJSC, as they then were, suo motu raised the constitutional point of the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to hear appeals from the decisions/directions of LPDC. Full court was constituted to decide this point.

The full court was then led by Uwais CJN as then was. Other members of the panel were, Belgore, Kutigi,Ejiwunmi, Musdapher, Pat-Acholonu and Akintan JJSC as they then were. Arguments were canvassed and the supreme on July 15, 2005 held that it has jurisdiction to hear appeals from the directions of LPDC.

In the lead ruling of Uwais CJN as he then was at page 67 of the report his lordship held that: This court does not readily oust its jurisdiction. In principle, it jealously protects its jurisdiction. It follows from the foregoing that this court amply has jurisdiction to hear the present appeal from the Disciplinary Committee. I therefore, so hold. Accordingly, the appeal in this case is fixed for hearing on April 28, 2005.

It is that appeal that was heard that is reported in (2005) 15 NWLR (pt,949) and it is known as Okike vs LPDC No 2. See Ndukwe vs LPDC (2007) 5 NWLR (Pt.1026) 1 at 32 para H. It was a unanimous decision of the full court of seven Justices of that court. That decision is fully reported. With respect the learned counsel who appeared and argued the case of Aladejobi did not properly guide the Supreme Court.

The Supreme also did not guide itself properly. If the court had adverted its mind to its decision of full court delivered on April 1, 2005, as it ought to, it could not have come to the view it held in Aladejobi’s case. Perhaps it is necessary to stress here that both the Supreme Court and learned counsel that appeared in this Aladejobi case did not appreciate the fact that the law that created the Appeal Committee of Body of Benchers has been repealed by Decree No 21 of 1994. See Okike vs LPDC No1 and in particular the lead ruling of Uwais CJN as he then was at pages 61-62 thereof.

It is submitted that the decision of the Supreme Court was clearly per incuriam in the face of the decision of the same Supreme Court which was of the full court and which was neither referred to nor over ruled in Aladejobi case.

The Supreme Court is, therefore, most humbly requested to correct itself and overrule its decision of July 12, this year as it was not properly guided in the light of the prevailing laws and its own decision which it ought to take judicial notice of.